Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
CSPAN 7
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
CSPAN2 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
WTTG 1
WUSA (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 40
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> on foreign policy, we have a new secretary of state taking over today just as veep biden in his meetings with french president hollande in paris talk about the possibility of one-on-one bilateral talks with iran. let's take a look at what joe biden had to say. >> when and if the supreme leader and the iranians are prepared to discuss the essence of what is at the core of these embargoes, we're prepared to discuss. we're prepared to meet with them individually. >> iran, of course, a big topic in the chuck hagel confirmation hearings. a big source of dispute and wig conversations and negotiation with israel. john kerry over the weekend talked to simon peres and talked to abbas and also met hue. where do we stand now, and what is the timeline aring the different red lines with israel and with the possibility of one-on-one talks with iran? >> well, aun drae, i thought that the most important statement that the vice president biden made was when and if. they haven't really had conversations even with the totally of the european powers, but -- and iran since june. many thought that there would
. a reporter for foreign policy said it looks like the iranian dumped some rudimentary flight controls and an ejection sheet into a shell molded into what they thought were stealthy angles. a defense analyst looks like it might make noise and vibrate if you put a quarter in it. president ahmadinejad said it carries a message of peace, friendship, and brotherhood. our military achievements, he said, do not pose a threat to anyone. seems like in this particular case, it doesn't pose a threat to anyone which leads us to our next story about military achievements that do indeed pose a threat. there is word tonight that the united states facing drastic defense cuts could be falling behind some of its potential enemies. national security correspondent injurjennifer griffin looks at t prospect. >> reporter: for the first time in two years, the pentagon said it can't afford to keep two aircraft carriers in the persian gulf. the u.s.s. truman would have left today from norfolk, virginia. defense secretary leon panetta blamed the cut back on is he quest ration saying if congress can't rewrite th
box right? >> such a key component of obama's foreign policy has been we're going to slip in across borders, we're going to do covert actions kill who we need to kill as we view that. it is extremely -- you know, these kind of things, the way these things operate the machinery behind it when you read this memo, i mean this is what you would call, you know, a barnburner scoop. this is actually amazing stuff to see this written down in black and white the way the government does this. >> bill: again i think liberals progressives, would be raising holy hell if george bush and dick cheney -- if this were their policy demanding at least to know what the guidelines are. i think we should be equally strong, i believe in making that demand. even if it's president obama and joe biden. their policy. because this is a big deal. and you know -- >> if you think guys likewide-do that? -- wyden will do that? >> bill: he wrote letters saying we want to see all of the memos on drone policy and we want to see what the guidelines are. what rules you are following. and i think the american people deser
on the president on foreign policy issues. >> eric: thank you, chris. those interviews are on the "fox news sunday" program that airs later on today here on the fox news chabannel at 2 p.m. and 6 . on the fox newschannel. jamie? >> jamie: you know what's coming up. the doctors are in for their sunday housecall. they'll tell us about a surprising new study that's raising concerns about the effects of a common supplement. it's been linked to heart disease. we'll tell you what it is. stay tuned. [ male announcer ] when it comes to the financial obstacles military families face, we understand. our financial advice is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. [ laughs ] dad! dad! [ applause ] [ male announcer ] life brings obstacles. usaa brings retirement advice. call or visit us online. we're ready to help. learn more with our free usaa retirement guide. call 877-242-usaa.
, a discussion about the situation in northern mali. then a look at foreign-policy challenges facing the obama administration. >> on ne
think we have a lot more thoughtful and responsible for and policy. -- foreign policy. we have a lot less swagger. one of the things about gerald ford -- 10 battle stars, silver star, four bronze stars. he had seen it. jim webb was a perfect example -- the senator from virginia. he said, all these think tank commandos in this town, let's go in and get tough -- you do not send force. you send young men and women who have lives and families and hopes and dreams, and you had better think twice, three times, if we will send them in. so i do feel -- the obligatory line for every politician, democrat, republican, is how much we admire the people in the military, the great job they do. i just ask, when was the last time a president of the united states went to a funeral for anybody who came back in a pine box? i cannot find one. one of the reasons is, they do not know anybody in the military. the sons of the cabinet officers or the ceo's or network correspondence or columnist -- when we were debating going to war in iraq, my sister and i called all 535 offices on capitol hill. we asked just
. they have huge questions or senator hagel and his positions on how he would handle foreign policy, particularly with opposing sanctions on iran and north korea and israel. with that said, it was the secretary of defense secretary of, they did not do enough. so i think that there's these questions that need to be answered. as we know, it's been fox news covering this issue, ignored by the mainstream media. this is a moment in time we've loved an -- lost and embassador and several americans. >> one phone call, 5:00. >> one phone call. >> the white house would say the president was briefed by advisors. you served the president, george w. bush. >> that's right. when dealing with an attack, when american lives are in harm's way, we know that becomes quicklily a high priority for the president. if we know -- we know there's an attack going under way. >> what should he have done? >> i really think you have to step aside from being so focused on the election at that moment in time and make this one of your top priorities. >> should he have been back in the oval office behind the desk? >>
? >> what will he not talk about? >> well, they think that there will not be much talk about foreign policy. you threw me a curve there, maureen. that was good. i think the fact is that they feel that they have a good policy, he's not going to talk about the stories that you just ran about chuck hagel and about brennan at cia, and he is not going to talk about benghazi. he is going to say that the fate of the owe that the state of the union is strong, and he is going to point to his accomplishments. he feels very confident. based on the election results, he is going to do everything he can to make himself and the democratic party look good. >> perhaps, speaking to the state of the republican party, florida senator marco rubio, whose national profile is certainly being elevated, he is giving the republican response, not just in english but in spanish. what ask that say to you? >> that's the wave of the future. obviously they read the election figures. 71% of the voters who were hispanic voted democratic. they realize they're in electoral doomsday if they can't get into that con stitt you the
on foreign policy. when his father ron paul ran for president he got in trouble with a lot of republicans because his foreign policy was anti-war and isolationist which a lot of republicans didn't like. rand paul is departing from that, trying to make himself more acceptable, i think, to mainstream republicans. >> so you think we'll have another paul on the ballot in 2016. is rand paul remotely electable, nia-malika henderson? >> i'm not really sure. >> nationally. >> if you look at what happens, the republicans as much as we can talk about how they have moved to the right, the last candidates that have come out of these primaries have been moderates. you think about mitt romney, john mccain. is there going to be a third party, the tea party that breaks away from the gop. we'll have to wait and see. >> thanks to both of you. good to see you on this sunday. >> thank you. >> just ahead, top of the hour. the big dig has a new meaning in boston. digging out from more than three feet of snow, but it won't be in time for school tomorrow. good news force kids. bad news for parent. plus, californ
and it is the lasting legacy of foreign policy. >> and that leave mes with the question because of so many ideological differences of president obama and president bush, but not on this. it suggests possibilities that presidents are just presidents and they always expand their kind of war powers which is one possibility, and the other is that the president nose something that i don't know about what constitutes threats to the national security, and the third is that well, on this one question, this president is just as hawk ish as george w. bush and any way to adjudicate the possibilities of what war means to the obama administration? >> well, i think that, i think that is absolutely right, it has been a continuation of the bush administration policies, and yes, administrations always try to push the outer bounds of the authority. but one thank is clear is that the laws of war have not changed even if the practice has changed. there are really three reasons that a country can, a state can use force outside of its borders. one, if it is the victim of an armed attack and second if the u.n. security coun
troubled by it, as someone who's served in the white house on foreign policy. what bothered you the most about the way it was put together? >> let's separate it into two sets of issues. one is the criteria for when the united states does say a drone attack and the other is the process by which we make the specific decision. the criteria are simply not sustainable. for example, there's three. the first with is that it has to be imminent, the idea that the terrorists planning an attack are about to launch an attack. we don't know that. so you can't meet the first threshold you set. we don't wait till it's imminent because we never know. and that's clear if you look at all the drone strikes we've done, by the time someone has made the career choice to be a terrorist, we decide that they qualify as a potential target. indeed we go beyond that. so-called signature strikes, you target people who appear to be doing the sorts of things that terrorists tend to do. we set up criteria that we ourselves do not meet. we then say it has to be the capture is infeasible. you don't want to have to captur
in the war on terror and is this legal architecture going to guide american foreign policy in perpetuity because there will always, i guarantee you, thomas, somewhere in the world be someone somewhere who is plotting to do something terrible to the united states, always. that is going to be absolutely the case. and if that is all it takes for us to be in a state of war, we will be in a state of war forever. >> isn't that the new ghormal of what we've evolved to in a country where we have been in a perpetual state of war for a dozen years now? >> yes, but i don't think it should be. i don't think the mere presence of somebody plotting to do something terrible to the united states should be the bar that triggers us being in a state of war. you know, england got hit, spain got hit by terrorist associated with al qaeda. that doesn't mean spain is in a permanent state of war. it doesn't mean england is in a permanent state of war. there are nations that have been targeted by truly genuinely mallef lent forces and it doesn't mean they reorder their thinking, their strategy, their legal archite
. there were often serious questions about foreign policy betweens the party and the idea of holding up a nomination-- >> schieffer: two of them. >> two of them would be deeply unusual. >> these are very big appointments. these kinds of things happen all the time with smaller nominations and often we don't even find out who the senator is who is holding up the nomination. but this is, obviously, a very public play on the parent of senator grahams and i suspect there will be negotiations behind the scene. >> schieffer: do you think the republicans will back him? john mccain said he does not favor filibuster. i wonder if graham will have the backing. one senator can hold it up. clear me up on senate procedures. have to have 60 votes, wouldn't they, to break that hold? >> i think a hold can sometimes keep away a vote of any number. i think what republicans are torn about here is the fact that on the one hand, they do think they have serious questions to raise about benghazi and that the american people have serious questions. on the other hand, when you get involved in libbia, there are al
the president's foreign policy priorities ought to be, looking at response to the turmoil of the arab spring, dealing with russia wouldn't seem to be anyone's natural first priority right now. jenna: one of the arguments, though, for doing this, according to "the new york times," is it would save a lot of money. if we don't have to keep these nuclear weapons and store them and watch them, that's going to save us a lot of cash, and we know the type of financial situation we're in right now. why isn't that a good argument? >> one, everyone would like to save cash, but really we've had $5 trillion added to our national debt over recent years, and maintenance of our nuclear strategic capability contributed nothing to that. and the proposed cuts, they say, would reduce about $120 billion in spending over 20 years, which is really a drop in the wasn't compared -- bucket compared to approaching $20 trillion in national debt. the second is the cut into intellectual capabilities well that should be stimulating economic development, research and development and applied technology. hitting these areas,
of jerusalem. i thought we would talk about current events and foreign policy. he said, i want to talk to about the city of jerusalem in the year 66. he said, the year 66, titus and the romans laid siege to the city of jerusalem. the city of jerusalem would not relent. years and years passed by. finally, up one person told him that if you want to take the city, you need to wait and be patient. inside the city, there is a problem. that problem will grow into a cancer and that cancer will eat away the very core of that community. if you know your history, what happened around the year 70 is the divisions within the city of jerusalem amongst the zealots and others became so significant that it weakened the city from inside. the rabbi told me that the city of jerusalem was taken in the year 70 by titus. he looked at me for a long time and i looked at him. he said, what is the moral of the story? i said, make sure there are no zealots in newark. [laughter] he said no. he said, the moral of this story is that if there is no enemy within, the enemy without tim do you know arm. he started growth -- goi
in the group of nurses, very well read on foreign policy. eleanor tended to keep her intellect quiet and her thoughts -- she was the one who knew the japanese were going to come, but said nothing. and the interesting thing about eleanor is after surrender, she kept a diary, but not of her own thoughts and feelings; she copied poetry from the famous poets and from aristotle, various thoughts that captured what she felt. so it's a fascinating diary. c-span: is she alive? >> guest: no. eleanor died about three years ago. c-span: did you talk to her? >> guest: i did. a friend of mine spent a lot of time with her. i had difficulty getting out to indiana for -- there was a -- for financial reasons. and a friend of mine went out and did all the interviews for her. c-span: and who is this right here? >> guest: oh, that's red harrington, or mrs. mary nelson. she lived nearby here in virginia. she was a navy nurse, and she was as beautiful as a movie star when she was a young woman. mary, or red as they called her, was a real spirited young woman, met her future husband when he was a prisoner of war i
and foreign service and domestic policy. i am also an army veteran and them currently a member of the maryland national guard. >> good for you. >> in the political crisis and the economic crisis in this country, in your speech, you've talked about "week, the people ," i would like to bring up the social crisis currently. on average, members of the military commit suicide at the rate of 22 deaths per day. that is a the one death every 65 minutes. i would like to know what the department of defense and lawmakers can do to effectively address that crisis, the social problem. and also please say something about homelessness among veterans. >> yes. it is one of the most tragic issues that we deal with right now in the military. it is the growing rate of suicides that are taking place. and in some ways, they reflect the growth of suicide in the general society. part of this, there's no question in my mind that it is related to the stress of war over the last 10 years, the fact that we have deployed people time and time again, time away from their family, time away from the ability to kind of get the
.s. foreign policy for decades which many acknowledge they have, how is this different? >> targeted killings have not been part of the u.s. policy for decades. they were engaged in up until the 70s, the congress stepped up and president ford put a ban in place and they only reappeared after 9/11 because of the threat we now find ourselves in. so they're not something that we are used to doing. we are used to killing people in war, but weir not used to sending secret operatives or secret drones around the world, naming an individual person and deciding he's worthy of death and killing him. that is new and post-9/11 stuff and president obama is the person who upped the ante on this. >> what happens when another nation acquires and uses the same drone technology that we've been talking about and they exercise little to no restraint? >> you don't need a drone. all you need is a rifle. this is the sort of policy that you can apply to any sort of situation. the technology is the secondary question and once you decide that you can kill people for whatever reasons you like including your own citizen
minutes after the hour nobody knows the foreign policy issues better, more in depth than joe ciriycone from the plow shares fund. you can find out all of the rest of the stuff plow shares is working on at their website, ploughshares.org. english spelling. we were talking about the chuck hagel and what he might do with the defense budget. i mean there are cuts coming for sure. can defense department survive that? >> it continual you heard leon pan ittetetta say it would be traumatic for the defense department. sequestration is almost certainly going to happen. but there is an upside that it forces choices. there are some turkeys there that are now probably going to get killed. one of them in particular is the plutoneian fuel plant, lindsey graham's home state that was supposed to cost $400 million, now up to 4 billion and real costs probably 6 billion. they wanted to take deadly plutone yam and mix it with fuel. nobody wants to buy it. none of the american peoples want to buy this fuel. it's toxic, hard to handle. it is spiraling out of control. >> bill
party. also putting morality at the center of foreign policy, something that reagan did that was a shift from the nixon and kissinger years. reagan was also all social conservative, very proud one. so he talked about abortion, the pro-life movement, in a way that had never happened. so that was a huge shift. reagan changed the republican party in profound ways. since reagan, there has not been that many changes. george w. bush in 2000 changed it in ways that are helpful. on immigration and the attempted, and on education and the whole notion that we republicans have concern for the common good and have asked france and community and civic organizations. host: now to the democratic line in connecticut. caller: i used to be a republican many moons ago. i voted for bush i over bill clinton as a matter of fact. now i don't know who the republican party is. i went from the republicans to an independent to democrats. three reasons. number one, i want religion out of the party. i have a religion. that's my business. i have a political party. that's the political parties business. member two, wo
.did it and that really became a cornerstone of the republican party. also putting morality at the center of foreign policy was sent and reagan did there was a shift from the nixon and kissinger years and rake in the cells of a social conservative, a very proud one. so these types, for example, about abortion in a way they never had. reagan changed the republican party. since reagan, there have been then not many changes. george w. bush in 2000 changed in ways i think was hopeful, both about immigration he attempted and also on education and relive the whole notion we republicans have concern to strengthen community and the organization. >> host: democrats fine. >> caller: hi, i used to be a republican many moons ago. matter of fact, i voted for bush ones over bill clinton and now quite frankly i don't know who the republican party is. i went from republicans to independents, to democrat. three reasons. number one, i want religion out of the party. i have a religion. that's my business. i have a political party. that's the political parties business. number two, women's issues. i don't personally be
of the polls said that basically people felt that democrats were the stronger party in foreign policy and stronger party in keeping, you know, america safe and terrorism. we've never seen that before. republicans have always won on those measures. whether or not it's the reality on the ground and you can point to each country it does seem to be a perception out there that this party is doing something to keep america safe. >> the perceptions change and perceptions clearly change when suddenly we discovered that in libya and in egypt we were not as beloved as president obama would have had us-- would have had us believe because he gave a beautiful speech in cairo. in fact, our popularity ratings in many of those countries. >> going back five years. >> are lower than they were under the last-- >> going back five years. >> under george w. bush. >> you're five years old on that statement. >> this is another perfect example. we supported what was supposed to be a freedom agenda in egypt and what do we have? we have a muslim brotherhood taking over. >> and mubarak in office a better move? a
could all use some of her gumption. so you can catch her blogging on the foreign policy association web site. she has a book out called "a woman's war, reaching out it young people looking for a career in intelligence." next friday i'll be right back here with gretchen on the curvy couch with a story of colonel guy blueford, first african-american in space. he's always believed anything is possible and has shown the world he has the right stuff. it's part of the american history we all share. >> gretchen: what i love about the stories is you see from the very beginning early on in their lives that they know what they want to do and how they're going to get there and sometimes it's a rocky road, but they get there. >> i loved just her glimpse of making the impossible happen. not listening to those outside voices that sometimes can put doubt in their mind. >> gretchen: everyone can relate to that. see you next week. >> thanks. >> gretchen: the president says he doesn't have a spending problem, but take a look at this brand-new fox poll. the american people don't agree with that. we'll ana
for not leaking. and what we also see in this is that foreign policy is really run from the white house and not from anywhere else. this is a very white house centric national security team and i think that the president is, of course, first among equals. if you look at those people up on the screen, wolf, it is the president of the united states who made that decision on osama bin laden, hillary clinton and leon panetta wanted to arm the rebels and it was the president who decided differently. so it's very much center data. >> the president of the united states, who makes a decision over rejecting the advice, in the end it's up to him. >> of course it's up to him. what modern presidents center their policy in the white house and if the president is making decisions about his to him is who are the people next to him? and cabinets over the last decade or two, you have strong members of cabinets, no doubt about it. but the policymaking, more and more centered out of that oval office and out of the people who are in that small piece of real estate right around the president. >> what's the
to global manufacturers that companies have relocated much of their activities on foreign soil. our global trade imbalance is growing as we export less and import more. and today this imbalance includes many high-backed products. other nations are changing their policies to become more competitive and so should we. fortunately blazing trails into new frontiers is what america has always done best. to set the stange for this congress and to -- stage for this congress and to understand where america's heading, we have very knowledgeable witnesses testifying before us today. each of them thoroughly ppedses both public and private research and development efforts as well as where our global competitors are headed. members of this committee have the opportunity to work together on policies that will help america stay competitive and today's hearing is a first step. that concludes my opening statement and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. johnson, is recognized for hers. >> thank you very much, chairman smith. for holding this hearing and thank you also for yesterday's bipartisan retreat which was
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)